Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Legitimacy of Using Intelligent Military Systems in Armed Conflict

Document Type : Article

Authors

Reza Arab Chadegani 1
Bahram moradian 2

1 PHD in International Law (law and political science faculty- Tehran university) – researcher at AJA Strategic studies Center, Tehran, Iran

2 PHD in International Law, Faculty of Law at the Farabi School, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2021.326075.2807
Abstract
With the arrival of new technologies related to intelligent systems into the field of military weapons, contradictory theories were raised among jurists about their use in various battlefields. Given the benefits of using these weapons, some jurists believe in the legitimacy of the use of these weapons, and some acknowledge the ban, due to their inability to understand the operational environment and their taken actions which is contrary to international humanitarian law. Therefore, the main question is to determine the challenges and legal considerations governing the legitimacy or prohibition of the use of intelligent weapons systems on the battlefield. The research method is descriptive-analytical, data collection done by library method and the statistical population are books, instruments and international conventions related to this subject. The research shows, despite the lack of rules enshrined in international law regarding the prohibition on the use of intelligent weapons systems, the legitimacy of the use of these systems is based on the rules of IHL depending on the type of mission, operational function, the level of intelligence and operational environment. The use of the system depends on its application and varies in the range from absolute legitimacy to absolute prohibition.

Keywords

autonomous weapon systems
intelligent military systems
principles of international humanitarian law
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Academy Briefing, N. (2014). Autonomous weapon systems under international law. Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Geneva.
    3. Dinstein, Y. (2016). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. London, UK, Cambridge University Press.
    4. Docherty, B. (2012b). Losing Humanity: The Case against Killer Robots. London, UK, Human Rights Watch.
    5. DoD Directive No.3000.09. (2017). DoD Directive No.3000.09، Autonomy in Weapon Systems November 21, 2012, Incorporating Change 1, May 8, 2017,S. Dopartment of defense.
    6. Heyns, C. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. UN doc. A/HRC/23/47.
    7. ICRC (1987). Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols, and their Commentaries. Geneva, ICRC.
    8. ICRC Report of an expert meeting (2014). Report of an expert meeting on ‘Autonomous weapon systems، technical, military, legal and humanitarian aspects’, Geneva (26–28 March 2014)
    9. Lubell, N. (2010). Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors, New York، Oxford University Press.
    10. Melzer, N. (2009). ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law. Geneva،
    11. Toffler, A., & Toffler, H. (1993). War and anti-war، Survival at the dawn of the 21st century. Boston, Little, Brown.
    12. UK Ministry of Defense. (2011). Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre, The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Joint Doctrine Note 2/1. UK Ministry of Defense.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Aaronson, M. (2013). Killer Robots, Double Standards? Blind Faith?. e-International Relations.
    3. Asaro, P. (2014). On Banning Autonomous Lethal Systems: Human Rights, Automation and the Dehumanizing of Lethal Decision-making, International Review of the Red Cross, Issue 94, Jun.
    4. Asaro, P. (2016), Jus nascendi, robotic weapons and the Martens Clause ,. In: R. Calo, M. A. Froomkin, & I. Kerr (Eds.), Robot Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 367-387.
    5. Carpenter, C. (2013). Beware the Killer Robots: Inside the Debate over Autonomous Weapons, Foreign Affairs, 3-4
    6. Coker, C. (2013). The Coming of ‘Killer Robot', e-International Relations.
    7. Docherty, B. (2012a). The Trouble with Killer Robots. Foreign Policy.
    8. Goose, S. (2012). the Future of Global Warfare: Killer Robots. Public Service Europe, November 2012.
    9. Kane, Angela (2013). Killer Robots and the Rule of Law. Huffington Post.
    10. Malinowski, T. (2012). A dangerous future of killer robots. Washington Pos.,
    11. Muller, V. C., & Simpson, T. W. (2016). Autonomous Killer Robots Are Probably Good News. In: E. Di Nucci, & F. Santoni De sio (Eds.), Drones and Responsibility: Legal, Philosophical and Socio-Technical Perspectives on the Use of Remotely Controlled Weapons. London, UK،
    12. Sassoli, M. (2014). Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages, Open Technical Questions and Legal Issues to be Clarified. International Law Studies, 90, 308-340.
    13. Schmitt, M. (2013). Autonomous weapon systems and international humanitarian law: a reply to the critics. Harvard National Security Journal, 4, 1-37.
    14. Thurnher, J. S. (2014); Examining Autonomous Weapon Systems from a Law of Armed Conflict Perspective, In H. Nasu, & R. McLaughlin (Eds.). New Technologies and the Law of Armed Conflict, 213-227, The Hague،M.C. Asser Press.
    15. Wagner, M. (2012). Autonomy in the Battle Space: Independently Operating Weapon Systems and the Law of Armed Conlict. legal reviews.
    16. Whitwam, R. (2012). Is it time to ban autonomous killer robots?. ExtremeTech.

     

    C)International documents

    Additional Protocol I (1977). Protocol Additional To The Geneva Conventions Of 12 August 1949, And Relating To The Protection Of Victims Of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Of 8 June 1977(1977). United Nation.

    1. CCW Additional protocol (II) (1980). Second additional Protocol to Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW).
    2. ICTY Prosecutor v. Stanislav Gali. (2003).
    3. Nuclear Weapons case. (1996). Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports. United Nation.

     

    References in Persian:

    - Articles

    1. Ranjbarian, A. (2018). The Observance of International Humanitarian Law by Autonomous Military Robots and the Responsibility for Their Actions. International Law Review, 35(59 (Fall-Winter)), 63-84. doi: 10.22066/cilamag.2018. doi:10.22066/cilamag.2018.31884 (In Persian).
    2. Seifi, B. (2021). Criminal Liability of Flying Automatic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles from the View of International Humanitarian Law. Scientific Journal of Security Horizons, 13(49), 29-54 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 53, Issue 4
Winter 2024
Winter 2024
Pages 2035-2055

  • Receive Date 29 June 2021
  • Revise Date 13 August 2021
  • Accept Date 03 October 2021

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us